To follow up on Erik's comment the law does restrict the CSB in its investigations when coordinating with other agencies,

(E) The Board shall coordinate its activities with investigations and studies conducted by other

agencies of the United States having a responsibility to protect public health and safety. The

Board shall enter into a memorandum of understanding with the National Transportation Safety

Board to assure coordination of functions and to limit duplication of activities which shall

designate the National Transportation Safety Board as the lead agency for the investigation of

releases which are transportation related. The Board shall not be authorized to investigate marine

oil spills, which the National Transportation Safety Board is authorized to investigate. The Board

shall enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration so as to limit duplication of activities. In no event shall the Board forego an

investigation where an accidental release causes a fatality or serious injury among the general

public, or had the potential to cause substantial property damage or a number of deaths or

injuries among the general public.

This link is a copy of the entire law. Legislative Authority 42 U.S. Code =A7 7412 Chemical Safety Board

-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**med.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Erik A Talley
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 10:47 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] CSB Public Meetings - input?

Hi Debbie,

NTSB was created in 1967 and NHTSA in 1970. DOT was only created in 1966. These organizations have always had to work together, and "grew up" together over many decades when transportation safety was also taking off. The political environment was also much different. CSB was created many decades after OSHA, EPA, etc. and is now trying to show jurisdiction but being seen as a new organization that is also tiny when compared to others. If I ask 10 people on the street who NTSB is, most will not know the exact acronym but will remember they are the group investigating transportation accidents. I think there is probably a lot CSB can learn from these other organizations, but we need to be careful and not say they should already be at the same level.

Best,

Erik

-----Original Message-----

From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**med.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Debbie M. Decker

Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 11:53 AM

To: DCHAS-L Discussion List

Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] CSB Public Meetings - input?

We have strayed from my original request but the discussion is fascinating.

I'm wondering, though - the CSB, NTSB, and NHTSA are similarly organized. But yet these other two agencies don't seem to suffer the same political issues as does the CSB. In the West, TX investigation, there was a very visible struggle over jurisdiction and access. The CSB complained that evidence had been either destroyed or removed before they had a chance to investigate. In the same year, there was a train derailment with 4 fatalities the NTSB investigated which then led to a study on sleep deprivation and its effects in the transportation industry. Why is it that when NTSB shows up, other agencies defer to NTSB but the same doesn't appear to happen for the CSB?

Just musing ....

Debbie

Debbie M. Decker, CCHO, ACS Fellow

Chair, Division of Chemical Health and Safety University of California, Davis

(530)754-7964

(530)304-6728

dmdecker**At_Symbol_Here**ucdavis.edu

Birkett's hypothesis: "Any chemical reaction that proceeds smoothly under normal conditions, can proceed violently in the presence of an idiot."

-----Original Message-----

From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Secretary, ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety

Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 7:33 AM

To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU

Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] CSB Public Meetings - input?

From: "Reinhardt, Peter" <peter.reinhardt**At_Symbol_Here**yale.edu>

Subject: RE: [DCHAS-L] CSB Public Meetings - input?

Date: May 29, 2015 at 7:34:46 AM EDT

Ralph's comment below is dead on. Be aware that every time the CSB issues a report the firm under investigation complains to their congressional delegation, who then attack the CSB for every reason they can think of: the report was flawed because of "technical reasons," the process was bad, the investigation was bad, the report went beyond the CSB's legislative mandate, lack of CSB expertise, poor CSB management and leadership, or that the report/process was just too public. The are plenty of members of congress who don't think the federal government should have a CSB of any kind. Few members of congress come to the defense of the CSB and their staff. -- Pete Reinhardt ________________________________________

From: Ralph Stuart [rstuartcih**At_Symbol_Here**ME.COM]

Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 6:47 AM

Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] CSB Public Meetings - input?

it's apparently the leadership that's been at issue for some time.

I'm not sure if it's the CSB leadership that's been the issue, but that its status as an independent federal agency means that it's in a very awkward political situation, which doesn't seem to be a high priority for federal leadership. It took 8 years for the Board to start up after it was established in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and it has not had the legislated 5 members for much of it existence. And its investigation agenda is more often Congressionally driven than strategic, based on the resources available to conduct the investigation.

Given these political limitations, the work that it has produced has been remarkable, which is why DCHAS recognized it with the 2008 Howard Fawcett Chemical Health and Safety Award.

- Ralph

Ralph Stuart

rstuartcih**At_Symbol_Here**me.com